Placing a value on the French monument removed by the Spanish and lost at Sea.

[ARC]

It was stated and put forth that because Sea Hunt had prior knowledge of Spain's ownership interests and had reason to expect Spain's ownership claim and refusal to agree to salvage activity on JUNO, Sea Hunt was not entitled to any salvage award(s).

This same would be expected of ANY further wrecks found from now until eternity.

No historical shipwreck of any value would be "abandoned" by the "owners"... So they will lay claim. IMO.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[ARC]

And I quote... "Courts cannot just turn over the sovereign shipwrecks of other nations to commercial salvors where negotiated treaties show no sign of an abandonment, and where the nations involved all agree that title to the shipwrecks remains with the original owner."

 

[ARC]

If anyone needs law advice on shipwreck / Maritime and admiralty law... contact Todd.

Todd D. Lochner, Esq.
Lochner Law Firm, P.C.
182 Duke of
Gloucester St.,
Annapolis, MD 21401

P: (443) 716-4400

F: (443) 716-4405

 

[ScubaFinder]

What we have learned here with all of this drivel is that the deck is still stacked against us, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future unless someone fights for the rights of our industry. For the record, I DO have a dog in this fight as I was employed by Global Marine Exploration when this discovery was made (My name is Jason Nowell) and I am also a shareholder. Below is just my personal opinion of course, I do not speak for GME and am no longer a full time employee.

SeekerGH, you should know that GME always followed every rule to the T, our surveys, data and publications were in a class of their own, our archaeology was impeccable, and I dare anyone to say differently. When we found the monument, we again followed the rules exactly and reported the find to the state with photos, measurements and location data. The state replied by pulling our very legal, very binding and perfectly executed permit agreement...this is also known as a breach of contract no matter how you spin it.

You seem to look at things in the worst possible light, e.g. "how did they spend 3 million when all they did was dust off a monument"....if you know anything about this industry you know there were thousands of hours of survey that took place out there before finding this shipwreck, and thousands of hours of digging, diving, documenting and publishing our data along the way. Think of that in terms of several 3 to 4 man crews, fuel, wear and tear on the vessels, food, etc. GME did all of this in good faith that our agreements with the state would be respected, and when they were not we were forced to protect our interests. If we cannot use the data we collected or salvage the shipwrecks we found, then what good were the permits? If they can just pull a valid, binding and properly executed contract for no reason without recourse, then things are out of control...again.

We know what we spent, what we don't know is what we LOST by the state refusing us artifacts that according to their permitting system, we get 80% of. This really isn't about France or Spain or ownership to me personally, it is about the state breaching GME's legal and faithfully executed contract. I never expected or even wanted us to get possession of the monument, it should be in a museum in France or Florida. What I do expect is to be compensated by the state of Florida for the monies we expended while faithfully executing our end of said legal agreement, which was subsequently breached by Florida Dept. of State. I also believe we are entitled to 80% of the intrinsic value of the artifacts that we found executing our end of the legal agreement, as stated IN the legal agreement.

We are so far off track here it is laughable. Your valuations are also based on your ability to only see the worst examples...sure some bronze cannon sell for $7K but GME sold a plain, 4 foot, non-ornate bronze cannon just a few years ago for over $40K, and it had zero story at all. Now let's assume that GME can prove this was Menendez's ship coming home from Capturing Fort Caroline, then what are these much larger, very ornate cannon, associated with the massacre that named Matanzas Inlet worth?

The monument is the only one in existence, making it extremely rare. There are parks in Florida and France which have erected replicas of the monument, so to say there isn't much interest is a laughable statement....if they aren't interested, why did they hire Gould and file a lawsuit? Again assuming you find the rest of the pieces and prove it is the monument from Fort Caroline, the value would be enormous and everyone knows this, including France and Florida. You can clearly see their motives for stopping us before we had located or recovered the rest of it. They never gave us a chance to identify the vessel or truly determine the value of the finds because they knew they were going to breach our contract and would eventually have to pay for that. They immediately started squealing "Trinite" so they could fall back on the "too historically important to be recovered by non-academics" garbage, even though there are piles of data (much of it from their "expert's" own books) that clearly and decisively proves that it is not the Trinite. Just because Meide said "One survivor stated that he saw large columns" does not trump the manifest which did not say anything about columns. It went down to how many of each size nail were loaded aboard the Trinite, but somehow they left out a huge stone monument that was meant to assert the kingdom of France's ownership of a foreign land? C'mon Man!

 

[Darren in NC]

This really isn't about France or Spain or ownership to me personally, it is about the state breaching GME's legal and faithfully executed contract.

And therein lies the bottom line of all this. Well said, my friend.

 

[Au_Dreamers]

As I am sure that many of you are aware, after the recent recovery by 1715 Fleet Queens Jewels, which was splashed all over Good Morning America, Spain has asserted its claims with the State of Florida.

AARC this stands out.
View attachment 1460578

It's not Florida's jurisdiction, it's a resolved Federal matter of 30+ years!

 

[ARC]

You know...

I love this T-shirt...

:P

 

[seekerGH]

Seeker, You do realize that it is "notes" as a verb?

What are you talking about?

We are so far off track here it is laughable. Your valuations are also based on your ability to only see the worst examples...sure some bronze cannon sell for $7K but GME sold a plain, 4 foot, non-ornate bronze cannon just a few years ago for over $40K, and it had zero story at all. Now let's assume that GME can prove this was Menendez's ship coming home from Capturing Fort Caroline, then what are these much larger, very ornate cannon, associated with the massacre that named Matanzas Inlet worth?

Assuming you can, then it is sovereign Spanish. It seems to be played with a naive idea of how admiralty claims are made and litigated. So far, it looks to me like it has been played both ways. In Court, claimed unidentified, while in the press (for valuation) a much different story. A French column, with French cannon, yet the story is that the Spanish captured the fort and artifacts, and were transporting them. All the while, claiming lack of identity of a shipwreck to the Court. Please review the Odyssey playbook on the Mercedes to see how that turned out, and their Contempt of Court ruling with a $1 million dollar penalty for extended litigation due to claiming lack of identity.
As for the valuation, look at the press.
I suppose you are aware that Fort Caroline location has never actually been found?
I am not sure about you, but I cant find anyone who has Fort Caroline as a destination to visit.
Large, ornate cannon, well, there are certainly no examples of those around, really. As a note, looking at the rare cannon that Odyssey Marine recovered from the HMS Victory, a famous vessel, and rare cannon, and Odyssey was paid $250,000 for 2 cannon. Thats $125,000 per cannon. (basically cost to recover) So a rare cannon from a (sortof) British Warship, the Victory, is worth $125,000, but somehow, this cannon from a French Huguenot fort of unknown location is worth $1 million? Reality check, who is going to pay $1 million for each of those cannon?

The monument is the only one in existence, making it extremely rare. There are parks in Florida and France which have erected replicas of the monument, so to say there isn't much interest is a laughable statement....if they aren't interested, why did they hire Gould and file a lawsuit?

One of a kind, while perhaps rare, may not be valuable, nor would anyone pay for it. How much interest has there been on this column? Your mention the Park, but that monument was provided by whom? Has the interest been from the Ribault Society? Has the general public been interested in seeing the column? You mention 2 entities that have replicas, the NPS and a museum in France (which is a tribute to Ribault, not the column) Do you see either entity paying anything for the an original piece? You must be aware that what has been found so far is just a piece of the column? A stone Fleurs de lis, one cannot imagine how many of those there are laying about.
As noted before, the oldest known stone of the 10 commandments, which certainly has some historical value to the world (and bragging rights for the owner) sold for $250,000. Somehow, a piece of a stone column that does not have a set location (scholars argue if the French colony was in Georgia or Florida), comes from an unknown vessel, and may have never been installed as a monument, is somehow worth $50 to $60 MILLION ?!?!?!

As stated before, it is not about the value, it is about the precedent. As you noted in your statement, it could be a Menendez vessel, then it is Spanish, perhaps now you see the connection to Goold representation?

You seem to look at things in the worst possible light, e.g. "how did they spend 3 million when all they did was dust off a monument"....if you know anything about this industry you know there were thousands of hours of survey that took place out there before finding this shipwreck, and thousands of hours of digging, diving, documenting and publishing our data along the way.

GME had a preliminary permit, with no admiralty claim, and they spent $3 million? Why? Hopefully, at this point, even you can ascertain that I do have a very good working knowledge of research, recovery, and the associated costs. Was part of the 'research' costs associated was the original post, begging for information on the identity and valuation of the artifacts?
In looking at the equipment that GME has, $3 million is far more than all of it is worth. Racking up thousands of hours of 'research', yet still claiming the wreck is unidentified? (well, at least to the Court) The cartoon illustrations, while amazing to some, are simply cartoons in the research world (and not even to a proper scale) please do not try to impress anyone in the Court or otherwise with those, it will not go well.
My statement on the $3 million was more of an observation. Spending $3 Million, at this point in the recovery, with only a preliminary site investigation, no identity, and asking the internet for valuation? This is a beach site, accessible by divers, not a deep ocean ex.

Reality check:
$3 million spent on a site with no provenance? $3 million spent on a site previous to any recovery or conservation? $3 million spent on a site while claiming lack of identity? It just does not compute. Looking at what has been shown so far as a potential recovery, I see the entire lot at less that 10% of the claimed costs to date. Looking at this as a business, spending at least $3 million, with no ability to recover anything, while the potential value is less than $300,000...well, that is not a difficult decision to make. Keep pouring bad money after bad, that has yet to be successful.

No permit to recover. Whatever the reason, there is no permit to recover.
Florida pays 80% on value of recovered artifacts. Value of recovered artifacts=$0.
Go ahead, fight the State in the Courts on permission to recover. You think $3 million is a lot of money. In the end, I can almost guarantee you will lose. (ie remember my posts on the Brother Jonathan and California)

Smart money would have made a deal with Florida, France, or Spain, not fight them in Court. Personally, I would have chosen to deal with the French out of Court.

When 1715 Fleet-Queens Jewels splashed the Spanish gold on Good Morning America, it raised Spains ire on the issues. Not only did they assert their rights, they are asserting that Florida is not properly protecting the 1715 fleet, with no archaeological supervision, and nothing to show as far as research and documentation on the recoveries as was required in the ruling. Looking back, while entities claim archaeological recovery and documentation, just how much of that research is public, or more important how much has been properly published. I am not aware of a single published paper on the Atocha.

Perhaps now you may realize why things are changing with Florida and this business. If you do not, then you are a problem. On the side of this, it is easy to work within the rules, recover sites, and make money. I see there are mentions of working with France and/or Spain to recover shipwrecks. There are many groups that do this, and do well.
Be one of those types, or become a casualty of the evolution of this business.

Again, precedents are about to be set. As someone who is vested in recoveries, and the ability to continue as such, this doesnt look like it is going very well, and therefore, I will endeavor to protect my interests, not GME's. Take that as you will.

 

[ARC]

Here is an OLD link to SOME of the "team" assembled by TSI.

Shipwreck Treasure Atocha 1622 Key West Florida Found By Mel Fisher

 

[Salvor6]

AARC Treasure Salvors was given custody of the Atocha site because it is OUTSIDE state waters. The Atocha site is not private property, it is federal property and TSI was named custodian of the site by the 11th circuit court of the southern district of Florida. TSI must, to this day, report everything it finds to the court.

 

[ARC]

The wreck itself and contents therein belong to TSI.

To do with whatever TSI sees fit.

 

[ARC]

The so-called injuncted area overlaps the site concerning which the State of Florida had granted to Treasure Salvors exploration rights (site 8MO141). The injuncted area lies 9.25 miles west, southwest of the Marquesas Keys. The latter Keys are approximately 40 miles west of Key West, Florida, and approximately 35 miles east of Dry Tortugas. The injuncted area lies wholly within the contiguous sea zone. The territorial sea extends in an arc 3 miles west of the westernmost land of Marquesas *924 Key. Thereafter, the contiguous zone extends seaward for an additional 9 miles, together comprising what is familiarly referred to as the twelve-mile zone (limit). See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 8 and Defendants' Exhibit 5.

The so-called injuncted area consists of approximately 13.3 square miles in the Gulf of Mexico.[2] This is the area described in the Temporary Restraining Order (December 11, 1979) and in the Preliminary Injunction (January 7, 1980) as the area extending 2500 yards to either side of a line drawn between two points, the first located at 24°31.5' North Latitude and 82°20' West Longitude, the second point located at 24°30' North Latitude and 82°15' West Longitude. State of Florida site 8MO141 embraced approximately 18 square miles. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 10 for a more detailed site description, page 22.

According to the Constitution of the State of Florida (F.S.A.Const. Art. 2, § 1), the boundaries of the State of Florida include an area set forth as follows:

n a southerly direction along the edge of the Gulfstream or along a line three geographic miles from the Atlantic coastline and three leagues distant from the Gulf of Mexico coastline, whichever is greater, to and through the Straits of Florida and westerly, including the Florida reefs, to a point due south of and three leagues from the southernmost point of the Marquesas Keys; thence westerly along a straight line to a point due south of and three leagues from Loggerhead Key, the westernmost of the Dry Tortugas Islands; thence westerly, northerly and easterly along the arc of a curve three leagues distant from Loggerhead Key to a point due north of Loggerhead Key; thence northeast along a straight line to a point three leagues from the coastline of Florida; ...

Within this definition the Marquesas Keys are Florida territory, subject to the declaration by the United States of the Marquesas Keys as a wildlife refuge[3] by virtue of which the United States claims jurisdiction over the uplands above the mean high water mark constituting the Marquesas Keys, i. e., effectively the entire Marquesas Keys.

 

[ARC]

General principles of maritime and international law dictate that an abandonment constitutes a repudiation of ownership, and that a party taking possession under salvage operations may be considered a finder under the doctrine of "animus revertendi," i. e., the owner has no intention of returning. Wiggins v. 1100 Tons, More Or Less, Of Italian Marble, 186 F. Supp. 452, 456 (E.D.Va.1960). Ownership in the vessel would then vest in the finder by operation of law. Rickard v. Pringle, 293 F. Supp. 981, 984 (E.D.N.Y.1968), citing Wiggins, supra, and 1 C.J.S. Abandonment § 9, p.18. Thus, those beginning a salvage service as to an abandoned vessel are entitled to sole possession of the property. See Rickard v. Pringle, supra, at 985, citing The John Gilpin, Fed.Cas.No. 7,345 (S.D.N.Y.), and Brady v. The Steamship African Queen, 179 F. Supp. 321, 323 (E.D.Va.1960).

 

[ARC]

Simply... and common sense wise...

"one cannot really understand what happened to a shipwreck without digging, without salvage.
Search, salvage, ongoing research, archeological mapping is all part and parcel of a whole operation."

 

[ARC]

I am not aware of a single published paper on the Atocha.

They have done an extraordinary / exemplary "job" of / in documentation of this historical wreck AND even though they are not required to "publish" any of it...
This documentation and information is available for ANYONE to examine ... at any time.

Not only are all artifacts documented they are ALSO able to be seen by the public... which is more than I can say about 99% of the states "finds" which are locked away from public eyes.
AND secreted. ( are you aware of the of the lost / stolen items which to this day are unaccounted for from the original items handed over to the State from TSI)

To this day... TSI ALLOWS ANYONE to DIVE WITH AND search for items WITH the crew of TSI ON THE ACTUAL WRECK SITE.

No other entity ... especially the State... does this.

Talk about an "open door / open book" to the public (including you) heh

IF all wrecks could be handled in "required" similar ways with a reasonable split for both the public/state and salvor team(s)... everyone can win in this long battle.

 

[Blak bart]

Your right ARCC we are long lining there right now. We often set very close to the magruder when were shark fishing. Last week we caught 30 bulls, lemons, and hammers the first day, and 41 the next day. Should be a little safer for the boys, at least for a little while. Your numbers and description of the break line is right.

 

[ARC]

AARC Treasure Salvors was given custody of the Atocha site because it is OUTSIDE state waters. The Atocha site is not private property, it is federal property and TSI was named custodian of the site by the 11th circuit court of the southern district of Florida. TSI must, to this day, report everything it finds to the court.

Actually it lies in multiple waters... heh

But first and foremost... it does not lie in either... she lies in international waters.

Or should I say... "part".

 

[ARC]

And as far as I am aware...

TSI has no obligation to report anything to The State Of Florida.

 

[ARC]

What we have learned here with all of this drivel is that the deck is still stacked against us, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future unless someone fights for the rights of our industry. For the record, I DO have a dog in this fight as I was employed by Global Marine Exploration when this discovery was made (My name is Jason Nowell) and I am also a shareholder. Below is just my personal opinion of course, I do not speak for GME and am no longer a full time employee.

SeekerGH, you should know that GME always followed every rule to the T, our surveys, data and publications were in a class of their own, our archaeology was impeccable, and I dare anyone to say differently. When we found the monument, we again followed the rules exactly and reported the find to the state with photos, measurements and location data. The state replied by pulling our very legal, very binding and perfectly executed permit agreement...this is also known as a breach of contract no matter how you spin it.

You seem to look at things in the worst possible light, e.g. "how did they spend 3 million when all they did was dust off a monument"....if you know anything about this industry you know there were thousands of hours of survey that took place out there before finding this shipwreck, and thousands of hours of digging, diving, documenting and publishing our data along the way. Think of that in terms of several 3 to 4 man crews, fuel, wear and tear on the vessels, food, etc. GME did all of this in good faith that our agreements with the state would be respected, and when they were not we were forced to protect our interests. If we cannot use the data we collected or salvage the shipwrecks we found, then what good were the permits? If they can just pull a valid, binding and properly executed contract for no reason without recourse, then things are out of control...again.

We know what we spent, what we don't know is what we LOST by the state refusing us artifacts that according to their permitting system, we get 80% of. This really isn't about France or Spain or ownership to me personally, it is about the state breaching GME's legal and faithfully executed contract. I never expected or even wanted us to get possession of the monument, it should be in a museum in France or Florida. What I do expect is to be compensated by the state of Florida for the monies we expended while faithfully executing our end of said legal agreement, which was subsequently breached by Florida Dept. of State. I also believe we are entitled to 80% of the intrinsic value of the artifacts that we found executing our end of the legal agreement, as stated IN the legal agreement.

We are so far off track here it is laughable. Your valuations are also based on your ability to only see the worst examples...sure some bronze cannon sell for $7K but GME sold a plain, 4 foot, non-ornate bronze cannon just a few years ago for over $40K, and it had zero story at all. Now let's assume that GME can prove this was Menendez's ship coming home from Capturing Fort Caroline, then what are these much larger, very ornate cannon, associated with the massacre that named Matanzas Inlet worth?

The monument is the only one in existence, making it extremely rare. There are parks in Florida and France which have erected replicas of the monument, so to say there isn't much interest is a laughable statement....if they aren't interested, why did they hire Gould and file a lawsuit? Again assuming you find the rest of the pieces and prove it is the monument from Fort Caroline, the value would be enormous and everyone knows this, including France and Florida. You can clearly see their motives for stopping us before we had located or recovered the rest of it. They never gave us a chance to identify the vessel or truly determine the value of the finds because they knew they were going to breach our contract and would eventually have to pay for that. They immediately started squealing "Trinite" so they could fall back on the "too historically important to be recovered by non-academics" garbage, even though there are piles of data (much of it from their "expert's" own books) that clearly and decisively proves that it is not the Trinite. Just because Meide said "One survivor stated that he saw large columns" does not trump the manifest which did not say anything about columns. It went down to how many of each size nail were loaded aboard the Trinite, but somehow they left out a huge stone monument that was meant to assert the kingdom of France's ownership of a foreign land? C'mon Man!

BTW... meant to add earlier...

Scuba... first I want to say... Well written / said.

I am rooting for you guys and am once again appalled by yet another State breach of contract.

Now you know why I put ZERO faith in any new "permits" issued by this State.

IMO... GME should be FULLY compensated for any and all costs and potential loss of financial gains via this amazing find... regardless of the wrecks origin / history / ownership.

The motto for us as a nation should be... "want your Sh*t back ? Then pay the piper... Period"

Good luck and may God's wind fill your sails.

 

[huntsman53]

While GME is currently suffering from the latest antics of the State of Florida, I write this to all Treasure Salvor Companies and those with interests in (hold Stocks) and/or their' businesses rely on the Treasure/Shipwreck salvaging industry as a whole and am posting it in several threads.

All of these entities need to come together and form an association to fight the State of Florida and legislation aimed at depriving Treasure Salvors/Shipwreck Salvagers from earning a living and paying their' stockholders their' due. If this cannot be achieved through the U.S. Attorney General and some of the Courts, then start Petitions and gain the signatures and support to file for a Congressional Hearing. The Congressional Hearing should be mainly to investigate (an Investigative Congressional Hearing) the wrongdoings of the State of Florida on behalf of Treasure Salvors/Shipwreck Salvagers but also to investigate the unfairness of treaties, legislation, laws and policies that have been enacted and signed in the last century, some of which were clearly written to circumvent the fair rights of Treasure Salvors/Shipwreck Salvagers to make a living and pay their' stockholders by receiving their' share of the fair value of items salvaged or their' share of the items of which they can later sell. It is well past the time for everyone with interests in these matters to quit bickering amongst themselves, quit fighting over areas/ships to salvage, quit complaining and talking big stuff and go ahead and do the big stuff!


Frank